AIM-54 Phoenix missile

The aircraft design philosophies for the USN and the USAF are
different the former concentrates on turn radius performance and slow
speed maneuverability around the boat at low and medium altitudes.
While the latter (USAF), concentrates on turn rate at faster speeds
and at higher altitudes.

Current F15 drivers that I have spoken to do go slow in a dogfight
depending on the aircraft. Of course, the gist of a turn radius
fighter is to turn inside one's adversary thus preferring a one circle
fight.

Nevertheless, the F15's strength primarily lies in the transonic
regime whereas the F14's strength is in the mid to high subsonic
regime. The F15 is better by several degrees of turn rate over the F14
in this area while going slower, the F14 has several degrees of turn
rate better than the F15. Going to low subsonic speeds, the F15 is a
tad better. Going over the M1.1, the F14 is better. What's interesting
is that the peak turn rates are equal at combat alittude.

Max SEP for both aircraft is the middle of the transonic regime,
which, in fact, they are very similar (referring about the F14 F110
engine).

During the early stages of ACM/EVAL in 79, the F14A had more than
twice the engagements than that of the F15 since the aircraft had to
refuel. This was primarily due to the internal fuel capacity
differences since both aircraft didn't have external tanks. The USAF's
solution to increase the amount of engagements was to add the
centerline tank which somewhat evened up the scores.

Now to those piper shots, regardless of aircraft, how do you rate a
kill? I have seen some F15 HUD dogfight footage in which the pilot
calls a kill with a heater yet in reality there was no way he could've
hit the plane due to the speed and aspect of the aircraft as he was
flying slower. By the time the missile leaves the rail, the targeted
aircraft will already be out of the constraints of the seeker.

jd

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:40:35 -0500, "Tony Volk" wrote:

If all of this were true, the Harrier would be the world's premier dog
fighter.
it is not.

No offense Al, but you're not giving me enough information to be helpful
with this comment. As a very quick reply, I would say first that the
Harrier has proven itself to be a very dangerous a-a opponent. Second, I
would argue that many of the traits of the Harrier would be found in a
premier dog fighter (although I'm afraid I don't have detailed performance
data on the Harrier). However, more modern designs (Su-37, F-22) have
thrust vectoring, with higher t-w ratios, better avionics, more fuel, better
AoA performance (I'd assume), and better missiles. So should you have said,
the Harrier would posses qualities that make it a dangerous dogfighter in
modern ACM, I would immediately agree, and I think both history and training
results would back me up. But as the Harrier lacks several of the key items
I mentioned in my analysis, it doesn't follow that it'd be the perfect test
of my theory.

Tony

You are advocating bleeding energy in tight turns in order to achieve "first
launch". The Harrier is the current leader in such maneuvers, as it can sit
in one place and rotate around the vertical axis at will. While the Harrier
can be useful against such birds as the Mirage, it cannot live in the same
sky with a F-15, 16,18, etc. In addition, I have never heard of a Harrier jock
sitting still and rotating while shooting heaters. I am with the folks who
maintain that conserving one's energy is critical in ACM.

Al Minyard

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:50:39 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Tony Volk
writes
I don't care what you're flying, if you "turn like' hell" you have blown
off all your energy, or at least enough that you can't do anything
about me if you even get a glimpse.

I can get off a missile before you can, and that's a heck of a
something!

Missile effectiveness is a pretty direct function of the energy of the
launching aircraft. There's a reason why (for example) ground-launched
Chapparal SAMs are credited with much less range than air-launched
Sidewinders, despite being the same missile.

I imagine this is a lot less true for long range missiles such as
Phoenix or Meteor.


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:15:11 -0500, Tony Volk wrote:
Boy, I'm sure getting a lot of mileage out of my posts!

Missile effectiveness is a pretty direct function of the energy of the
launching aircraft.

Let me make an even more direct function. Missile effectiveness is an
absolute direct function of whether or not it's on your rails on in the air.

Firstly, do you have _time_ to then calculate relative envelopes, select
the best weapon, set up the switchology and fire?

In modern fighters, this shouldn't be a problem for well-trained pilots
(the F-22 has engagement envelopes, etc.). In fact, the F-22's software is
reportedly designed to do just that more or less automatically.

I would imagine it wouldn't be too difficult for the software to
automatically select which missile to fire -- does it do this in
any modern fighters?

This is the critical assumption. You are NOT firing at each other.
Because of your energy-gobbling turn, your missile is in the air first. He
can see it, and he'd have to be an idiot, insanely good, and/or a Kamikaze
to return fire instead of immediately initiating a break turn. Even if you
bluff a shot a little outside of your parameters, can HE judge whether it
has sufficient energy? Not very likely (and that'd be one HECK of a
gamble!). So you've put him on the defensive, eliminating the need to avoid
his missile (see previous conversations for his wingman and other players),
and making him use up energy while you can safely regain yours.

This suggests to me that in general, the fisrt person to get a
missile off is at a big advantage. In which case, doesn't that
indicate that the way to go is long range missiles such as Meteor?

That's
the best way to win (and survive) a modern dogfight IMHO (bearing in mind
that I have no access to classified missile/aircraft performance data).

A lot can be implied by unclassified data. For example, a piloted
aircraft can't accelerate at more than about 9 gees, because it
doesn't do the pilot's health any good, whereas missiles can
accelerate much more. You can work out an aircraft's acceleration
in the direction it's travelling, from it's engine thrust and max
speed (which give you its drag at that thrust). Similarly, it's
(I imagine) possible to get a reasonable estimate of acceleration
for a rocket, given its top speed, and the mass of the propellant.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

In message , phil hunt
writes
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:50:39 +0000, Paul J. Adam news@jrwlyn
ch.demon.co.uk wrote:
Missile effectiveness is a pretty direct function of the energy of the
launching aircraft. There's a reason why (for example) ground-launched
Chapparal SAMs are credited with much less range than air-launched
Sidewinders, despite being the same missile.

I imagine this is a lot less true for long range missiles such as
Phoenix or Meteor.

Not at all. The more energy a missile has when it tries to intercept,
the more chance it has to score a kill: just as true for a long-range
weapon as a short-range missile.

Just pause and consider a target forty miles away and at 40,000 feet;
will your missile arrive with more energy if you fire it from sea level
or co-altitude? From 200 knots or 600 knots? And is it pointed at the
threat or does it have to turn onto the bearing?

The two sources of energy for a missile are its own motor (fixed and
constant for a given weapon) and the speed and altitude of its launch
platform.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article , "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

Just pause and consider a target forty miles away and at 40,000 feet;
will your missile arrive with more energy if you fire it from sea level
or co-altitude? From 200 knots or 600 knots? And is it pointed at the
threat or does it have to turn onto the bearing?

The two sources of energy for a missile are its own motor (fixed and
constant for a given weapon) and the speed and altitude of its launch
platform.

Also add altitude and vector of the target. Shooting down is as much
an advantage as ownship speed.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

In message , Tony Volk
writes
Boy, I'm sure getting a lot of mileage out of my posts!
Missile effectiveness is a pretty direct function of the energy of the
launching aircraft.

Let me make an even more direct function. Missile effectiveness is an
absolute direct function of whether or not it's on your rails on in the air.

Wasted shots are wasted shots. You only have a finite weapon load: when
it's gone, you're a helpless flying target.

There are good reasons to snapshoot a weapon at a threat, even if you're
not able to guide it. But there are also times that doing so is at best
a wasted shot, and at worst a positive hazard to your own side (an
autonomous missile lofted into the blue will tend to attack any target
it sees, and they aren't yet able to read insignia).

Firstly, do you have _time_ to then calculate relative envelopes, select
the best weapon, set up the switchology and fire?

In modern fighters, this shouldn't be a problem for well-trained pilots
(the F-22 has engagement envelopes, etc.). In fact, the F-22's software is
reportedly designed to do just that more or less automatically.

Warming up a missile, providing it with a firing solution, and getting
it off the rail is not an instantaneous process. While quicker than it
used to be, you often still need time to get thermal batteries fired and
warmed up, seekers pointing in the right direction, and data messages
passed to and fro.

Switching between types exacerbates this problem, and may cause problems
when your software selects a radar-homer based on the
apparently-splendid radar echo of the target... while the pilot fumbles
for the manual override, because his radar is actually tracking the
target's towed decoy.

Secondly, does your MRAAM reliably support a high-off-boresight
short-range engagement with a low-speed high-G launch?

If the enemy is beyond the range of a short-range IR missile, you have a
much lower chance of having to resort to a high-angle, high-g launch than in
a quick slashing attack. And even then, the AIM-120C and R-77 are
reportedly quite agile.

So for BVR engagements, you want to squander the energy you're about to
urgently need in order to point your nose and fire back - rather than
surviving and evading (while your wingman fires back)?

Thirdly, assuming you fire at each other, do you want to be fast
(increasing missile lethality and your own survivability) or slow
(handicapping your weapons and carving into your ability to evade)?

This is the critical assumption. You are NOT firing at each other.
Because of your energy-gobbling turn, your missile is in the air first.

What alerted you to the enemy's presence (the target and any friends)
and how are you confident that there are not already birds inbound?

Is his nose pointed at you? If so, you'll get counterfired whether you
like it or not, and your bat-turn will probably get you killed when his
missile arrives.

He
can see it, and he'd have to be an idiot, insanely good, and/or a Kamikaze
to return fire instead of immediately initiating a break turn.

Actually, depending on range and his aspect, the break turn may come
much later in the engagement. His evasion sequence might well include a
shot back on the same "no point dying with missiles on the rails"
principle. And, of course, what is his wingman doing?

Bear in mind that one response to your shot is to turn tail and run; at
longer ranges it's quite possible to outdistance a missile shot.
Meanwhile, you're slow and helpless while your target's wingmen fire
back.

Even if you
bluff a shot a little outside of your parameters, can HE judge whether it
has sufficient energy? Not very likely (and that'd be one HECK of a
gamble!).

But then, at those ranges the enemy has more time to think over his
countermeasures (aided by your wilful reduction in weapon lethality) and
to plan his counterattack.

Would you have been better off taking a shot thirty seconds later, but
with much more chance of a kill and more chance to survive a return
shot?

So you've put him on the defensive, eliminating the need to avoid
his missile (see previous conversations for his wingman and other players),
and making him use up energy while you can safely regain yours.

Trouble is, air combat is a tag-team wrestle rather than a solo duel
(with the partner willing to jump into the ring anytime)

Meanwhile, how many missiles did you start with? You've now got at least
one less, in exchange for a shot with poor Pk. The US may have a
seemingly-bottomless supply of weapons, but most nations do not.

Are you and your wingman _both_ making brutal turn-and-shoot moves? How
long did you spend (a) making sure this really was a 2v2 and there
weren't actually four threats or a second section out there, (b)
co-ordinating your fire so that you do engage all the threats and (for
instance) don't both fire at the same aircraft, leaving the other
unengaged?

And the point remains... a missile fired from a slow aircraft at a fast
target will struggle to hit, compared to a missile fired from a fast
aircraft at a slow target. One reason modern Western missiles are highly
lethal is that the pilots are trained to use them properly and to fire

Taking a shot of opportunity is thoroughly sensible. Wasting energy to
take a shot at a poor target... is not.

The BEST way to avoid his missile is to make sure it never comes off his
rail.

By all means, but wasting your own weapons is not a successful means to
that end.

Dodging one of today's advanced missiles is an iffy proposition, it
is far better to gain the offensive, and stay in the driver's seat.

But you don't do that by marginal low-energy shots. And you make
yourself _much_ more vulnerable if you _start_ the fight by making
yourself a sitting duck.

Bear in mind that "air superiority" is a means to an end, not an end in
itself. If you make a savage turn and a low-energy shot at a passing
raid, they may well be able to simply turn away, accelerate and blow by
you (and you won't have the energy to pursue, having wasted it in that
initial turn) - and they go on to bomb their target, which it was your
job to prevent.

Better by far to shout for backup while flying a more restrained
pursuit, and making the most of your fuel and missile load in killing
them or forcing them to abort.

You can
regain all the energy you like while he's breaking away from your
missile(s).

No, you can't: I think you've got an excessive optimism about
acceleration rates.

So again, I think the best idea is to get your weapons in the
air (within reasonable, if not optimum, parameters) ASAP without worrying
about saving energy to dodge his missile or defeat other bandits. That's
the best way to win (and survive) a modern dogfight IMHO (bearing in mind
that I have no access to classified missile/aircraft performance data).

How are you detecting the foe to make this manoeuvre? (Hint - your
sensors look forward, but can be detected over a much larger arc)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

As a general response to you and others whom I haven't answered
directly, I'll ask that you refer to previous posts for answers to many of
your questions. That is, if you read the entire thread, you'll find that
I've already addressed many of your questions.

Wasted shots are wasted shots. You only have a finite weapon load: when
it's gone, you're a helpless flying target.

I wouldn't call a shot that puts you in the driver's seat wasted.

Warming up a missile, providing it with a firing solution, and getting
it off the rail is not an instantaneous process. While quicker than it
used to be, you often still need time to get thermal batteries fired and
warmed up, seekers pointing in the right direction, and data messages
passed to and fro.

You'd have the same problem when making high-speed slashing passes, so
your point is moot.

while the pilot fumbles
for the manual override, because his radar is actually tracking the
target's towed decoy.

Towed decoy is not for IR as far as I know (and most IR missiles have
robust enough AI to defeat flares), and in any case, I have no knowledge of
operational decoys, especially those suitable to a high-g dogfight (I'd love
to hear about any such decoys if they exist).

He
can see it, and he'd have to be an idiot, insanely good, and/or a
Kamikaze
to return fire instead of immediately initiating a break turn.
His evasion sequence might well include a
shot back on the same "no point dying with missiles on the rails"
principle.

I would classify anyone who decided to continue maneuvering for a shot
before dodging a missile en route as an idiot, insanely good, and/or a
Kamikaze.

Bear in mind that one response to your shot is to turn tail and run; at
longer ranges it's quite possible to outdistance a missile shot.

If he runs from your missile, you have a nice easy tail shot for a
MRAAM. Sweet!

Even if you
bluff a shot a little outside of your parameters, can HE judge whether it
has sufficient energy? Not very likely (and that'd be one HECK of a
gamble!).
But then, at those ranges the enemy has more time to think over his
countermeasures (aided by your wilful reduction in weapon lethality) and
to plan his counterattack.

What ranges? In a dogfight the ranges allow more time to think???

Meanwhile, how many missiles did you start with? You've now got at least
one less, in exchange for a shot with poor Pk. The US may have a
seemingly-bottomless supply of weapons, but most nations do not.

Oh COME ON. Conserve missiles for later flights? I don't think so!
I'd LOVE to hear a general tell their soldiers not to make less than 100%
shots on the enemy so that the missiles can be saved for later pilots! As
for the plane in question, it has at least one more IR missile, perhaps 3
more. Given the positional advantage gained by the enemy having to avoid
your first shot, you can now take your time with the second shot.

Taking a shot of opportunity is thoroughly sensible. Wasting energy to
take a shot at a poor target... is not.

The idea is to take a shot to create an opportunity. A crude analogy
would be throwing a low-percetange jab to set up a hook (assuming that your
jab was credible enough that the opponent had to duck/block it).


You can
regain all the energy you like while he's breaking away from your
missile(s).
No, you can't: I think you've got an excessive optimism about
acceleration rates.

His loss of energy in his evasive break is probably greater than your
gain of energy through worry-free unloaded acceleration. Bear in mind I'm
talking about the newest generation of fighters that have superb t-w ratios
and excellent acceleration.
I think that address all the unique questions you've asked. BVR, the
likelihood of different scenarios, wingmen, etc. were addressed in previous
posts. Cheers,

Tony

Also add altitude and vector of the target. Shooting down is as much
an advantage as ownship speed.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Not as much as you'd think. Increased air density shrinks missile
envelopes.

R / John

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 18:04:22 +0000, Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , phil hunt
writes
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:50:39 +0000, Paul J. Adam news@jrwlyn
ch.demon.co.uk wrote:
Missile effectiveness is a pretty direct function of the energy of the
launching aircraft. There's a reason why (for example) ground-launched
Chapparal SAMs are credited with much less range than air-launched
Sidewinders, despite being the same missile.

I imagine this is a lot less true for long range missiles such as
Phoenix or Meteor.

Not at all. The more energy a missile has when it tries to intercept,
the more chance it has to score a kill: just as true for a long-range
weapon as a short-range missile.

Just pause and consider a target forty miles away and at 40,000 feet;
will your missile arrive with more energy if you fire it from sea level
or co-altitude? From 200 knots or 600 knots? And is it pointed at the
threat or does it have to turn onto the bearing?

After travelling 40 miles, both missiles ewill be doing about the
same speed, I imagine. Though the one that starts higher will get
there quicker, and with more fuel (and therefore potential to
manouvre) remaining.

So it depends whether you count KE or KE + chemical PE.

But you asre right in the sense that launching high and fast gives a
greater kill probability.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: , but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).